the application of settled common law principles and would not
serve any useful purpose.
[ 20] The application judge found that E. T. had demonstrated a
sincerely held religious belief, particularly in relation to marriage and sexuality, which was at odds with the Board’s policy,
and that there was an interference with his religious beliefs that
was neither trivial nor insubstantial. However, applying the
framework established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Doré
v. Barreau du Québec,  S.C.R. 395,  S.C.J. No. 12,
2012 SCC 12 and Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General),  1 S.C.R. 613,  S.C.J. No. 12, the application
judge concluded that the Board’s refusal to provide E. T. with the
accommodation he requested was not unreasonable. The application judge found that the Board had taken account of the
claim of religious freedom and had reasonably concluded that
any constraint of E.T.’s religious freedom was proportionate
and no more than necessary given the applicable statutory
objectives. The application judge noted that other options,
including independent schools and homeschooling, remain
available to the appellant in the event that his concerns about
“false teachings” outweigh in his view the advantages of the
public school system.
[ 21] The application judge also dismissed the claim under the
Ontario Human Rights Code.
[ 22] E. T. does not appeal the refusal of a declaration of parental authority nor does he appeal the dismissal of his claim under
the Human Rights Code or any of the other grounds raised in his
notice of application.
[ 23] E. T.’s central submission on appeal is that his and his children’s freedom of religion as protected by s. 2(a) of the Charter has
been violated. He argues that the application judge erred in finding that the Board reasonably refused his request for advance
notification of any classes, lessons or activities involving topics
that he has identified as being sensitive, and for permission to
withdraw his children from such classes, lessons or activities.
[ 24] I begin my analysis by pointing to what I consider to be
a central and fatal shortcoming in the case E.T. presented
to the application judge and to this court, namely, the lack
of any concrete evidence of interference with his right to religious freedom.